Being Social

Friday, December 31, 2010

Governance through Obama, Peosi, and Reid revealed the democrat party's true nature, and that the fabricated definitions of the democrat party by the Media, Education, and Popular Culture were myth. In the run up to this past November's election I said the following:

...Where once they were able to sell the idea they were the party of fiscal discipline, the lie to the myth has been laid bare. Where once they claimed they were the party of the people, they are now the party of government owned businesses, takeovers and bailouts with the people's money. Where once they claimed to be the party of choice, they are now the party of limiting choice in health-care. Where once they feigned compromise, they lead unilaterally. Where once they seemed to reflect the wishes of the people, they defined themselves through immigration reform, Guantanamo, ObamaCare, and the Ground Zero Mosque as above the will of the people.

They paid a price for their immoral governance this past November and will likely continue paying through several more election cycles, but it has become clear that Pelosi, Reid, and Obama have a long term strategy for regaining and enhancing democrat power that called for those dues to be paid. It is a strategy that should be recognized as detrimental for our nation and any fruit it bears should be allowed to rot.

Pelosi, Obama, and Reid recognized the power of programs like Social Security, Medicare, and Medicaid. Militaries are periodically scaled back; not so social programs. Social programs show no history of cuts, only growth, and that growth benefits the party of big government ... democrats. Talk of cuts has historically benefited democrats, as such talk usually stems from their opposition which is quickly accused of being mean spirited our worse for political points. There are also votes of dependency to be gained. Social programs are the mother's milk of bureaucracies and bureaucracies are dependant on the party that favors their programs for their existence.

What they needed was another social program. That social program was ObamaCare. I doubt they initially entered the Obamacare debate thinking their program would be rejected by the people of America, but when it was rejected [see Scott Brown], they did not stop pursuing ObamaCare. With Scott Brown in Teddy's seat the numbers in the senate no longer allowed for the back and forth between the houses for ObamaCare that normally clenses bills. As a result, the house signed off on the poorly crafted senate bill rather than risk the failure of a better written version at the hand of a single person ... Scott Brown. Prior to the house's passing of ObamaCare Pelosi even considered using a maneuver referred to as "deem and pass" in which they would deem ObamaCare passed within a package of fixes in an effort to fix the Senate bill and garner votes through the anonymous nature of "deem and pass" votes.

Clearly the passage of ObamaCare was more important to Obama, Pelosi and Reid than the constitutional production of a quality Health-Care bill, or even the voice of the people.

Why?

Because they came to realize that the passage of ObamaCare, even against the will of the people, was worth the temporary cost to their party, that ObamaCare was an affliction on America that is unlikely (based on history) to be removed, an affliction on our nation that would strengthen their party while weakening our nation through government growth and control for decades to come.

In short, ObamaCare is the result of a tyranny of our exiting democrat majority that was willing to abuse our system of governance to saddle our nation and its people with a law that it gambled would not be repealed and would return them to power with enhanced influence over time.

The fruit of this tyranny of the majority, ObamaCare, should be allowed to rot least we see more.

Will [Bev Perdue] agree with Republican preferences to cut $3 billion to $4 billion, casting an eye back on November's elections and the big GOP victory? Her political strategy in that case would be to curry favor with conservative voters in anticipation of a re-election run in 2012.

Or will she propose to cut less, demanding that schools and other human services be protected by extending expiring taxes or by raising other taxes and fees? This course would be chosen to shore up her support with Democratic voters, making a "last stand" fight for preserving educational and social-service programs established over the past several decades.

It should be noted that education already eats up 60% of NC's budget. Taking 60% of the budget (education) plus the cost of the unspecified "human resources" would leave less than 40% from which to cut.

Furthermore, it should be noted that the percentage of the NC budget devoted to education would rise if spending in the remaining areas is reduced.

This could easily result in our state spending 70 to 80% of its budget on education. When last year it had been considered fair to spend 60% of the NC budget on education, how is it fair to spend 70 to 80 percent the next year at the cost of other programs?

Truly, the only fair and workable solution would be cuts that hit each recipient of state funds equally so that all recipients of state funding share the burden of the cuts equally.

Thursday, December 23, 2010

Does no one find it as offensive to liberty as I that Judges often review a verdict prior to a jury's reading of their verdict? What is the point of a jury if a judge can simply set their finding aside on the grounds that the jury did not apply appropriate law? Depending on the state, Judges can do just that, set aside a jury's verdict when the jury decides to nullify (not apply) an egregious law used against a defendant. Unfortunately jury nullification is a check on governance that seems to be fading.

I suggest we look at the unconstitutional laws and work as citizens to make sure they cannot be enforced. How? Volunteer for jury duty. I know, no one likes it, but when judges and Supreme Court Justices (like Stephen Breyer) sit atop their perch and cast down snide comments to us, pretending to offer “intelligent, wise counsel” all the while denigrating us simpletons for our presumption to know what the Constitution says, when they believe they are the only ones learned enough to decide that, it is time to take direct action.

The jury system was established because it was felt that a panel of citizens, drawn at random from the community, and serving for too short a time to be corrupted, would be more likely to render a just verdict.[citation needed] It was feared that a single judge or panel of government officials may be unduly influenced to follow established legal practice, even when that practice had drifted from its origins. However, in most modern Western legal systems, juries are often instructed to serve only as "finders of facts", whose role it is to determine the veracity of the evidence presented, and the weight accorded to the evidence,[2] but not the application of that evidence to the law. These instructions are criticized by advocates of jury nullification.

I have been essentially disconnected from all media for the past week and a half and with the exception of a short visit to McDonald's represented by the post below polifrog has suffered. I considered an "on vacation" post but decided against telegraphing my absence to the unknown.

I'm back now and kinking off my return with what will likely become a reoccurring feature judging from history.

Gov. Bev Perdue's office announced Wednesday that the company plans to create 100 new positions in North Carolina and will invest $36 million as part of the project, which was made possible in part by state grants from the Job Development Investment Grant program and One North Carolina Fund.

[emphasis mine]

Perhaps it would be cheaper to not drive perspective new corporations and their jobs from NC with an utter disrespect for property rights and contract law as Perdue has done in respect to Alcoa.

Although, claiming that which Perdue had no hand has a certain political luster.

If Perdue proposes a budget that does not include a revenue increase, it reframes the debate and hands the Republicans a powerful rhetorical tool to pursue their agenda of shrinking government and slashing budgets of education and human services.

Would the Fitzsimon argue that what has become the often referenced "Clinton economic success" was in reality simply a shift to the right as a result of his advisers convincing him to listen to the electorate that had just installed the Gingrich 1994 congress -- in short, would Fitzsimon argue today that the Cinton response to the 1994 election was simply an unfortunate reframing of the debate?

Wednesday, December 8, 2010

A new report from the National Conference of State Legislatures on budget conditions in the 50 states and Puerto Rico puts the hole North Carolina is facing at more than $3.8 billion, or 20.3 percent of current budget. NCSL collected information for its report from legislative fiscal offices.

I guess a budget deficit of between 3 and 4 billion is close enough for government work; is it for you?

According to Bev Perdue the only course available to reduce the NC state budget deficit is "to focus on supporting mission critical services and eliminating programs that have outlived their usefulness."

BusinessWeek[Bev Perdue's] administration directed agencies this week to offer ways to cut spending by up to 15 percent in the fiscal year starting next July 1.

...

In a memo dated Thursday to departments and agencies, State Budget Director Charlie Perusse asked for options on how they would cut 5 percent, 10 percent and 15 percent from their offices.

"Across-the-board reductions have already been taken," Perusse wrote. "This budget cycle we need to focus on supporting mission critical services and eliminating programs that have outlived their usefulness."

Targeted cuts as a method of lowering spending is a poor method for lowering budgets and is destined for failure. Targeted cuts impact recipients of state funds unequally. The result is the creation of haves and have-nots; those who bear the brunt of the cuts and those who do not. Further, those who bear the burden of the state budget cuts would rightfully respond to the unfairness of being singled out poorly and attempt to eliminate the budget cuts. In all likelihood the budget cuts would be severely reduced or eliminated altogether in an effort to draft a fairer budget to those who carry the burden of the cuts. The end result of Perdue's targeted budget cuts would be continued deficits resulting in a continuation of NC's dependence on conditional federal handouts.

NC's budget problems have become dire, so perhaps we should put the cart before the horse... and look back to our previous budget before going forward.

We can assume that a state budget once passed is essentially fair. If it were overly unfair in its distribution of state funds the budget would have failed until a fair budget were reached. This is the point at which the fair and equitable distribution of state funds can be found. It is also the point at which cuts should begin.

In keeping with the sense of fairness Americans are accustomed, the cuts should be made across the board so that all departments and all individuals carry the burden of the budget cuts. There would be no haves, just have-nots, each carrying a load lessoned by pervasiveness.

When departments complain of lowered funding, they can be reminded of their moral obligation to carry their share; they can be reminded that they are not alone in their burden.

Saturday, December 4, 2010

I am a spectator as ObamaCare marches through the courts and rightly so. I have no training and that in itself likely answers the following question.

Is ObamaCare not an infringement of interstate commerce? I realize it relies on the interstate commerce clause for constitutional muster. But it seems to me that ObamaCare is so extreme in its interpretation that it overshoots the intent of the interstate commerce clause and by its vary nature infringes on interstate commerce itself.

For example: If I choose to spend $20 dollars in SC (I live in NC) on cold medicine, but prior to that expenditure ObamaCare pries those dollars from my hands thereby limiting my choice to buy cold medicine in SC and thus engaging in interstate commerce, is ObamaCare not infringing on interstate commerce?

I don't see where this is any less tenuous an argument than the one our the administration is clinging to: that a citizen's choosing not to engage in economic activity affects interstate commerce. In fact, my argument seems far more reflective of the intent of the interstate commerce clause.

Another example. If, for instance, ObamaCare destroys the market for catastrophic health insurance (and it will as such insurance will not be considered when one attempts to meet their obligation for health insurance under ObamaCare), then the choices of US citizens will have been limited by government in just the same way as when an individual state interferes with commerce between the states if it were to limit commerce across state lines.

It seems to me that it does not matter whether a single state limits commerce across its boarders or the federal government limits commerce across all state lines --- the result is that interstate commerce is no longer free and regular.

I wonder. Does the interstate commerce clause only apply to laws passed by states that negatively impact commerce across state lines or does does it also apply to laws passed by the federal government that negatively impact commerce across state lines?

But more importantly, why is our government involved with any of this climategate proven nitwittery at all? There is no way an agreement from these talks will result in anything but a limiting of liberty for US citizens. The vary fact that our leaders are involved in these negotiations is evidence that they do not represent the interests of the citizenry.

With that in mind ... withdraw, let the rest of the world agree to cut their own throats while we prosper on the fruits of our liberty.

Hidden behind the save-the-world rhetoric of the global climate change negotiations lies the mucky realpolitik: money and threats buy political support; spying and cyberwarfare are used to seek out leverage.

Once again the embarrassment is not the leak, but rather our government's willingness to involve itself (with a reliance on the unethical) in an unethical sham, this time the Global Warming nonsense -- a concern of statists and enemies of liberty.

Once again Wikileaks shows us that if our leaders respected liberty these "leaks" would be inconsequential.

Friday, December 3, 2010

[I]n a Thursday interview with Fox Business, Paul said the idea of prosecuting Assange crosses the line.

“In a free society we're supposed to know the truth,” Paul said. “In a society where truth becomes treason, then we're in big trouble. And now, people who are revealing the truth are getting into trouble for it.”

"Re: WikiLeaks — In a free society, we are supposed to know the truth. In a society where truth becomes treason, we are in big trouble."

It seems the greatest damage due to the publishing of these leaks is that of exposing needless systemic secrecy/information control/lying, and the resulting political damage to those who likely exercised power beyond that granted their position. Hillary.